Delhi

North East

CC/58/2018

Jaswinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vodafone store - Opp.Party(s)

16 Jul 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No. 58/18

 

 

In the matter of:

 

 

 

		Sh. Jaswinder Singh R/o H.No. D 6/1 New Govind Pura, Gali No. 08, Near Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051		Complainant
		Versus
	1.       2.       3.	Vodafone Store Pandit Park 662/1 Patparganj Shahdara, Delhi-110051   Vodafone Store K 62, Chachi Building, Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051   Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. C 48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase II, New Delhi-110020		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:		27.03.18 24.04.24 16.07.24

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

 

ORDER

 

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Opposite Party alleging deficiency in services.

Case of the Complainant                                                                 

1.  The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that on 12.06.14 Complainant purchased new Vodafone connection having sim no. 83156450525 mobile no. 9873442238 from Punjabi Shop, Rashid Market, Bhagat Singh Road, Delhi for a sum of Rs. 90/-. On 06.05.17 Complainant received call from Opposite Party No.3 for conversion of his prepaid sim to post-paid sim and Complainant had to pay Rs. 250/-. Thereafter Complainant paid Rs. 250/- as cash security and Rs. 250/- by cheque no. 241252 dated 15.05.17 and Opposite Party provided a sim having sim no. 89911190185099059983 mobile no. 9873442238. After using the sim, the sim has no network and Complainant lodged complaint with Opposite Party No.3. Thereafter Opposite Party No.3 sent a new sim having no. 89911190185192386556 at residence of Complainant and that sim was also not working properly. On 24.05.17 Complainant lodged complaint with Opposite Party No.1 bearing token no. 177 and Opposite Party No.1 gave false assurance that same will be functional within 24 hours but sim did not work after 48 hour also and thereafter on 26.05.17 Complainant visited Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.1 replaced the sim with sim no. 89911190185191659193 but that sim did not work till 30.05.17. The Complainant faced lot of problems as the mobile no. 9873442238 was activated after 4 days. On 30.05.17 Complainant wrote letter to Opposite Party No.3 for changing his post-paid number to prepaid number but Opposite Party No.3 did not give any reply. On 26.07.17 Complainant paid Rs. 280/- to Opposite Party No.1 and he got receipt of Rs. 180/- and Opposite Party No.1 provided a new prepaid sim but that sim also not started working after 24 hours and Complainant wrote complaint letter dated 31.07.17 to Opposite Party No.3 but no reply was received by Complainant. On 31.07.17 Complainant lodged complaint at meditation centre and on 06.09.17 the matter was settled with the Opposite Party and the Complainant. The Opposite Party paid Rs. 1,250/- and Rs. 250/- for security and his prepaid sim was converted into post-paid but after few days there was problem of network and Complainant lodged complaint to Opposite Party but all in vain and Complainant also did not receive bills from Opposite Party and without intimation Opposite Party No.3 stopped the connection of Complainant. The Complainant had called customer care of Opposite Party No.3 and he came to know that his bill of Rs. 800/- was pending then Complainant registered for conversion of his post-paid sim to prepaid sim and paid his bill online on 25.12.17. On 26.12.17 Complainant visited Opposite Party No.2 for conversion of post-paid sim to prepaid and Complainant paid Rs. 300/- as security and got new sim having no. 89911190185281273210 but that sim was also not working after 24 hours and Complainant lodged complaint at helpline number but no reply was received. On 01.01.18 and 05.01.18 Complainant sent complaint letter to Opposite Party No.2 and 3 but no was reply received by Complainant. On 05.01.18 Complainant lodged complaint at mediation centre and on 23.02.18 Opposite Party No.3 was ready to pay Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 300/- and told Complainant to visited Opposite Party No.2 and submit his ID to get new sim and on 09.03.18 new sim got functional and got Rs. 2,300/-. On 24.02.18 Complainant visited Opposite Party No.2 and got new sim bearing no. 89911190185287629738 but that also does not become functional even after 7 days and Complainant lodged complaint at helpline number but no reply was received by Complainant and on 09.03.18 no settlement was done between Complainant and Opposite Party No.3. Hence, this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Parties. The Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Party to activate the mobile no. 9873442238 of Complainant and refund Rs. 300/- which was paid as security charges and returned his cheque of Rs. 250/-. He further prayed for Rs. 50,000/- for mental harassment and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. The Opposite Party No.1 and 2 was proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 27.05.22.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 3

3. The Opposite Party No. 3 contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the complaint is false and frivolous. It is stated that the Complainant has concealed the material facts. It is stated that on the request of the Complainant the disputed number was converted to post-paid on 07.05.17 for this the Complainant paid Rs. 250/- and opted for “199 New Plan”. The said number was activated on 09.05.17. The automatic bill was generated on 24.05.17 for the period from 09.05.17 to 23.05.17. The said bill also showed the usage of the phone during the said period. It is stated that the automatic bill cannot be generated till the number is not activated. The bills of May, June and July 2017 show that the disputed number was used by the Complainant.  It is stated that ultimately the matter was settled between the Complainant and the Opposite Party in the mediation centre. The Opposite Party paid Rs. 1,500/- to the Complainant. It is stated that on 10.09.17 the Complainant made an application for conversion of his connection from prepaid to post-paid. On the request of the Complainant, the connection of the Complainant was converted to post-paid from prepaid on 11.09.17. The said number was being used by the Complainant in the month of September, October, November and December 2017 and the bills were generated for the said period. The Complainant did not pay the bill for the said four months and therefore the Opposite Party discontinued the services of the said number in terms of rule 443 of Telegraph Rules. Thereafter, the Complainant contacted the Opposite Party to get the disputed number migrated to prepaid for which Opposite Party informed the Complainant that as bill of Rs. 800/- was outstanding against the Complainant and therefore the number cannot be migrated. Thereafter again the Complainant requested the Opposite Party to convert the disputed number from post-paid to prepaid vide Customer Application Form 26.12.17. On the request of the Complainant, the number was converted from post-paid to prepaid. However the Complainant failed to complete the Tele Verification Process as mandated by DOT under the guidelines dated 09 August 2012. The said process was intimated to the Complainant at the time of submission of Customer Application Form. The Complainant did not complete the said process and therefore the disputed number could not be activated. Thereafter, the Complainant approached the mediation centre for non-activation of the disputed number. During mediation the Opposite Party tried to settle the matter and requested the Complainant to visits its Krishna Nagar store i.e. Opposite Party No.2 with necessary documents for activation of the disputed number. However the Complainant did not visit the said store and got a random sim card from a retailer shop on 24.02.18 and has alleged its non activation. The allegations have been denied by the Opposite Party. It is prayed that the complaint maybe dismissed.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.3

4. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party    No.3, wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party No.3 and has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.

 

 

Evidence of the Complainant

5. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No.3

6. In order to prove its case Opposite Party No.3 has filed affidavit of Sh. Amit Kumar Jain, Authorized Representative of Opposite Party No.3, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party No.3 has been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

7. None has appeared on behalf of the Complainant for addressing arguments despite grant of several opportunities. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party No.3. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Party No.3.
8. The perusal of the record shows that the Complainant has purchased a mobile sim of Opposite Party No.3 company i.e. Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. The perusal of the record further shows that the Complainant was not satisfied with the working of the said mobile sim and he also made complaints in this regard. The record further shows that the Complainant made various requests for converting his mobile phone sim from prepaid to post-paid and vice-versa. Ultimately, the matter was settled before the Delhi Govt. Mediation Centre Rajpur Road. Under the terms of settlement, Opposite Party No.3 paid Rs. 1,500/- to the Complainant. Thereafter, the Complainant requested for conversion of his mobile sim from prepaid to post-paid. The said request was not allowed by the Opposite Party on account of outstanding dues towards the Complainant. Thereafter, the matter again went to Mediation Centre Delhi regarding non-activation of the mobile sim. During the said mediation proceedings, it was told to the Complainant by the Opposite Party to visits its Krishna Nagar store along with necessary documents for getting the said mobile number activated.  The case of the Opposite Party is that the number could not be activated as the Complainant instead of visiting the Vodafone store got issued a sim card bearing no. 89911190185287629738 from a retailer shop on 24.02.18 and has alleged its non activation. The case of the Complainant is that he has visited the store at Krishna Nagar. However no documents as been filed by the Complainant which shows that he had visited the Vodafone store at Krishna Nagar. The copy of the receipt filed by the Complainant does not bear the stamp of the Vodafone store nor is it reflected thereon that the said receipt was issued by Vodafone store. Therefore, as the Complainant himself has failed to show that he actually visited the Vodafone store, we do not see any deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties.
9. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is dismissed.

 

10. Order announced on 16.07.24.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Adarsh Nain)               Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President